Ecumenical discussion founded upon historic Christian orthodoxy

Shared Eucharistic Fellowship?

Life has been pretty hectic lately, and I haven’t had time to participate in the discussions yet, but I want to publicly express my appreciation for the spirit and quality of the posting here at EC.

Now as to the subject of this, my first post, I’d like to pose a question to the contributors: What do you all think of shared eucharistic fellowship between churches of different traditions?

This question lays heavily on my heart as I observe the divided state of Christendom. It seems to me that gathered around the Lord’s Table is the best place for Christians who differ among themselves to find agreement.

The first of Jonathan’s Twelve Principles of Protestant Catholicity is the centrality of Jesus Christ. It is not so much our confession that binds us together, but the living reality of our risen and ascended Savior. It is in Jesus that all things are reconciled: God and man, heaven and earth.

Now, I was raised in a dissenting fellowship of believers known to church historians as “Plymouth Brethren.” This name was not chosen as a denominational title, however. The early Brethren actually began as a non-denominational lay movement to recover unity in the church by gathering unto Christ’s name alone. This unity was to be effected by weekly participation in what Brethren call “remembering the Lord in his death,” or, “the breaking of bread,” i.e., communion.

(Of course, the Brethren are mere memorialists on the question of the Real Presence.)

The Plymouth Brethren pioneered in the 1820’s and 30’s what would later become Evangelical non-denominationalism. However, in time the Brethren movement became an end in itself, and hence, just another denomination claiming to embody The True Church on Earth (though to be fair, they wouldn’t put it quite that way).

The Brethren had at least one thing right: that the Lord’s Table ought not be a source of disunion, but rather, communion ought to be the instrument by which the Church unites around her Lord.

Jonathan’s second principle, the essential unity of the Church, is a principle that the Brethren also held. The Brethren were concerned to outwardly express the unity of the Body of Christ, to concretely express what they call “Church Truth.” John Nelson Darby, who is principally known as the originator of dispensationalism, argued that true believers were obliged to “come out” and be “separate from” the apostasy of the Christian establishment, i.e., Christendom. This arises from his dispensational theory that all administrations of God’s kingdom (even Christ’s Millennial Kingdom) must ultimately fail and degenerate into apostasy because of man’s sinfulness.

Darby argued that despite all outward appearances, the Body of Christ was in fact a unity. Consequently, Darby taught that by “gathering unto Christ” the Brethren were not forming a new church body, but merely recognizing the unity that already exists.

Darby judged that no existing Christian communion had preserved the visible public Testimony of Church Truth. This was based on his belief that the Testimony had been lost in the apostolic era. (Darby understood all of St. Paul’s polemics to be addressed to this problem.)

I left the Brethren because I found this reasoning to be fundamentally flawed. Our Lord’s prayer in John 17 was for a visible testimony of unity for his immediate disciples as well as for those who would afterwards believe their word (v. 20). And his prayer is surely efficacious.

So, a further question I have for the contributors here is what this visible unity consists of. Is it merely a common confession of faith, or, does it consist in a particular sacramental ministry and fellowship?

For our Roman Catholic interlocutors, I have a question as well: Why doesn’t the Supreme Pontiff travel to Wittenberg and kiss Luther’s Ninety-five Theses like he did with the Koran and demonstrate service to his separated brethren? It seems to me that the scandal of the indulgence sales and the subsequent shameful treatment of Protestants calls for some kind of demonstrable contrition.

If the Pope is truly the Vicar of Christ on earth he should do the works of his Master, the Lord Jesus, and not dictate what Christians are to believe and confess on the basis of his word alone. Rather, he should appeal to his brethren from a place of humility. After all, the Lord Jesus comported himself in a posture of meekness and self-sacrificing service. He who would rule in Christ’s kingdom must first become the servant of all.

Of course, there was sin on both sides, and maybe, just maybe, we can receive reconciliation and forgiveness of the sins we have committed against each other when we gather together around our risen and ascended Lord at his Table.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

14 Responses

Thanks for this thought-provoking first post. For me, the deepest unity we share is in Christ through our participation in a common spiritual life (the New Creation). This reality manifests itself outwardly in a common Confession as to the realities of the Christian Redemption (Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds come to mind) and a partaking in the one bread and one cup. Governmental union is to be striven for, but is not of the *esse* of the Church. Its loss is lamentable, but we still possess a true union if we are holding to the essential elements of the Apostolic faith and are communing members of the cleansed (baptized), universal Body.

Thus, I regard the Eucharist (as well as Baptism) as being an essential bond of our unity. Whether we want to accept it or not, we all do partake of one loaf and one cup, which is Christ himself, offered and received through Word and Sacrament. And I think that the best way this can be expressed across denominational lines is through permitting intercommunion.

It was a pleasure to read of your history with the Plymouth Brethren. I was raised in that environment, though we were very open/progressive and often freely borrowed from more “Bible Church” ideas. In fact, the community I grew up in and fellowshipped with from age 0-25 was pretty much started by my parents, and my dad has always been their only full-time worker and primary preacher.

I went Anglican for a year, and then Roman. I’m not sure I have a good answer to your question for RC’s, but maybe it’s rhetorical?

Looking back, I think one of the best things that Plymouth Brethren practice gave me was the silence during Breaking of Bread (when other men weren’t teaching). As I matured in my faith, it was a powerful time of contemplation of the sacrifice of Christ.

I am of the opinion that the loaf is for all of the loaf (1 Cor. 10:17). If you are willing to acknowledge someone as a Christian, yes even a “separated brother,” then you ought to admit him to the Lord’s table.

Excommunication, which is barring from communion, is a declaration that one is not a part of the body.

I also think that the conclusion of 1 Cor. 11 is not to understand the changes going on in the Eucharist, nor to determine whether or not one is “worthy,” but rather to wait for one another.

Every time I go to Mass it drives me crazy that I am excommunicated. In fact, for awhile I justified receiving on the basis that I was not excommunicated in the liturgy of the Mass itself but I eventually had to admit to myself that this was disingenuous and demonstrated a lack of integrity on my part.

But I think I understand why now. There is nothing like being excommunicated existentially by sitting through the blessings of a Roman Catholic Mass and not communicating. It breaks one’s heart. If you haven’t experienced it yet you should. It will provoke ecumenical reflection that is more prescient than that which takes place in an armchair. And when Rome tells you and I no, it drives home the weight of her claim.

Protestants of our ilk are in a very strange predicament. Here we have little in common with our Reforming forefathers because they too put the same existential burden on the papist. Common confession of the ecumenical Creed(s) was insufficient.

I am going to venture a guess that the great majority of younger Evangelicals, even (or especially?) in Reformed churches, do not think of the Roman Catholic Church as apostate. In error yes, but a true church nonetheless. This is a departure from the view that Calvin had, namely, that there may be some individual RC parishes here or there where the Word was dutifully proclaimed but these exceptions did not nullify the rule.

Most of us think of swinging the gate open toward RCs has been a positive development. But this is precisely what puts us in a difficult position to maintain for very long because we are no longer Protesting. In other words, it was worth sacrificing unity with Rome for the Reformers because Rome was no true church. If we think Rome is a true church the onus is on us to find something in Protestantism that is also worth sacrificing unity with her, while, ironically maintaining that we are not really separated in our eyes. I am sure we could think of an parable of siblings that would illustrate what I’m trying to say.

Further, if the situation is as I have described it, and we don’t think Rome is the synagogue of Satan, I feel a pressure to submit to her since she is not moving and we have been moving all over the place since the 16th century. Maybe she is wrong to make the claims she makes. But if She is wrong but still a sister, shouldn’t I submit to the weaker sister in a case of sibling rivalry?

When you say that government is not of the “esse” of the Church, I agree to the extent that the absence of holy orders or even an ordained ministry does not disqualify a body from being a true church. I would say that such a church is irregularly ordered. What’s necessary is that the leaders must intend to do what the church does. ;-)

However, I would qualify this by saying that Christ’s ministry (i.e., priesthood) is of the Church’s esse. Of course, I’m sure you’d agree.

And, you’d also agree that the Eucharist and confession of the catholic faith are formal bonds of communion recognized in the courtroom of heaven.

Finally, Jonathan, what steps do you propose for realizing full intercommunion between the various members of the Body?

It’s good to hear that others have found their way out of Brethrenism’s darkness & haven’t been swallowed up by the Evangelical soup. What part of the country were you raised?

My question directed to RC’s is not really a rhetorical one. While formally, holy orders may be legitimate, love of the brethren is a mark of the true church according to Scripture. I feel that if the Roman Church had handled Luther better, there never would have been a schism in the Western church.

It’s analogical to the state of affairs in Israel under Reheboam’s reign. The legitimate successor of David and Solomon offended his brethren by riding rough-shod over their rights. As such, the kingdom was divided (though the real cause was Solomon’s sin, as I recall.)

“However, I would qualify this by saying that Christ’s ministry (i.e., priesthood) is of the Church’s esse. Of course, I’m sure you’d agree.”

You are correct. I agree emphatically.

“what steps do you propose for realizing full intercommunion between the various members of the Body?”

Honestly, I don’t know that I have anything profound to contribute on this topic at the moment. I would think that a good start, at least for those within my own circle (conservative Reformed), would be to quit the “guilt by association” posture we have towards those of other traditions. As a good Presbyterian, I believe that the sanctity of the Table ought to be protected in some fashion, of course. But if one confesses belief in doctrines of the Nicene Creed and repentance to God for their sins, trusting in Christ for their salvation, one ought to be admitted to partake of the table.

I have believed always that it is far more important to be open to other Christians in one’s locale, rather then worry about denominations and creedal differences. Accepting other churches’ disciplinary actions (investigating them if there is reason to, but granting prima facie acceptance); accepting other churches’ baptisms; freely inviting all baptized unexcommunicated believers to the table; phoning a different local church each week and getting prayer request from her pastor and praying for that church in your worship — actions like these open doors, REAL doors, not theoretical ones. When I was in harness, we did most of these things, and it was very helpful.

It will be a long time before we are all using the same liturgy; but unity can be expressed in other ways. Such as esteeming other kinds of Christians better than ourselves, when they have real strengths.

“Every time I go to Mass it drives me crazy that I am excommunicated. ”

This is an emotional, not a factual, description of your
situation as a Protestant in a RC church.

If you were relly excommunicated, you are not allowed to receive Holy Communion period, not without jumping through many canonical hoops.

As a Protestant, you are perfectly welcome to receive Holy Communion as long as you complete the RCIA program and are received into the RC Church. The doors are always open, you are more than welcome to come inside. If you choose to remain outside or to be an occasional observer, you have placed yourself outside the communion of the Church and that is your own respnsibility.

At Mass, you will find a tactful but clear statement inside the front cover of the Missalette which explains that receiving Holy Communion together is the fruit, but not the basis, of Christian unity.

It should not be necessary to explain to those of Reformed background that discipline is a mark of the Church, as much as Word or Sacrament. The RC Church surely has a right to maintain its own discipline.

My own church (which is Anglican Catholic) has a clear statement in its service leaflet that to receive Holy Communion, you must (1) be baptized, and (2) share our faith in the Real Presence. No-one is ever challenged at the rail itself (unless the person is known to be unbaptized–a rare event), but if a person becomes a regular communicant, he is advised of the requirement to be Confirmed by a bishop of apostolic succession. The Confirmation requirement is relaxed somewhat through the “ready and desirous” rubric, which I interpret generously.

If Christ’s ministry is of the esse of the Church, and since his office is both royal and sacerdotal, and since the Church is both a priestly nation and a royal priesthood, doesn’t it stand to reason that offices in the Church are derived from Christ’s? And if this is so, wouldn’t ministerial offices belong to the esse of the Church as well?

It’s an honor to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

These are great concrete suggestions, and since there can be no top-down approach given the current state of things, we must work from the bottom up.

I agree, seeing the real strengths of the other members of the Body is absolutely necessary for us.

Governmental and liturgical unity is a desideratum, but as you say, there are other ways to seek unity. These good things would be detestable to God anyway if the proper love and care for the brethren were lacking. Fortunately, we don’t have to get everything sorted out canonically and liturgically to begin serving each other in order to edify the Body.